WorldNetDaily’s Barry Farber has quite a stern warning for the Boy Scouts of America if they go through with the now-delayed proposal to allow troops to accept gay members. Farber claims that any move towards “homogrifying the Scouts would hijack the very mission of scouting and turn the organization into a beehive of erotic exploration.” He warns that “admitting gays openly into the Boy Scouts is rather like insisting cigarettes be lit as close as you can get to the nozzle while the gasoline is being pumped.”

“In our Southern culture, you weren’t a ‘man’ until you’d ‘slugged a queer’ who approached you,” Farber said. “I failed the test. I always just rejected the advance and got out of there.”

He even compared the tactics of gay rights advocates to the Nazis who tried to intimidate and overpower their opponents.

Gays in the Boy Scouts? Scoutmasters, yet! Five years ago I’d have sooner believed you if you’d told me there was a campaign to grant long-repressed rights to blind hunters. How could such a preposterous idea zoom into serious consideration by the Boy Scouts? I may know the answer. The world may have seen it previewed on April 9, 1940.

The night before, Nazi German general Nikolaus von Falkenhorst had checked into the KNA Hotel in Oslo, Norway, in civilian clothes as a shoe salesman. Early the next morning he walked down the staircase resplendent in his German general’s uniform to greet his troops in their surprise invasion of Norway.

“It was brilliant,” a Norwegian friend told me. “We were psychologically defeated before we even knew we were under attack. There was a German military parade in downtown Oslo! When you see a parade you think, ‘This is planned. This is official. All this is somehow OK.’” There you have it. A parade makes everything seem somehow OK.

And what an awesome parade we’re watching to smash the traditional Boy Scout policy! The parade begins at the White House and includes all liberal politicians and those dependent on liberals for re-election, the media, the faculty, lots of clergy – I’m not sure there’s any room left for actual gays in that parade. And, like those super-stunned Norwegians, the rest of us are standing curbside, watching with dropping jaws.

America, have you gone mad? Don’t you remember being a 12-to-15-year-old boy? And weren’t you girls “awakening” at about the same age? Don’t you realize that homogrifying the Scouts would hijack the very mission of scouting and turn the organization into a beehive of erotic exploration? I don’t fear gay boys hitting on straights as much as I fear straights asking, “What’s this ‘gay’ stuff all about? Is there anything in it for us?” I also fear for the safety of young gays who, innocently or opportunistically, give a wrong smile or say the wrong thing to the wrong straight. In our Southern culture, you weren’t a “man” until you’d “slugged a queer” who approached you. I failed the test. I always just rejected the advance and got out of there.

The battle to diminish youth sex was lost – surrendered – with the schoolhouse condom giveaways. To a young teenager, that was the grown-up world telling you, “We know you’re going to do it, and we want to help you do it right.” And what message would the welcoming of gays into the Boy Scouts send? “Gay-play must be OK, or the grown-ups wouldn’t allow us to be camping, swimming, showering, sleeping, horsing around and walking through the woods together!” Admitting gays openly into the Boy Scouts is rather like insisting cigarettes be lit as close as you can get to the nozzle while the gasoline is being pumped.

From condemnation to condone-nation in one parade! The Nazis didn’t have it that easy in Norway.

Today, the Boy Scouts of America board said that it will postpone a final decision on the future of the ban on gay members until May. Two days before the announcement, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios said that gay men are child predators by nature and consequently should be banned from Scouting.

While responding to an email she received from a listener named David who opposes the current prohibition on gay Boy Scouts, Rios argued that gay men “like youth, most of them like young men” and go into professions like teaching and coaching so “they can be around boys.”

Like othersupportersoftheban, Rios cited Jerry Sandusky, who is married to a woman and wouldn’t have been affected by the ban on gay members.

“These are our children and their safety and well-being trumps any desire of any gay man to be a Scout leader or a gay boy to be a Scout,” Rios said. “If you want to be that and you can’t I’m sorry but we can’t all be what we want to be, we can’t put others at risk just because we want something.”

If you know anything about this you know that gay men love youth. They may not all like prepubescent boys but they like youth, most of them like young men, that’s why they go into professions and work with boys, that’s why they become teacher and coaches and shall we say Jerry Sandusky priests? They go places where they can be around boys, that seems to be a favorite thing and if you think that’s not true you know it is true. Not all gay men are pedophiles but all male pedophiles who like boys are gay. It seems to be a problem in the gay community, not a problem shared by all of them but everyone that has a problem with this seems to be gay, so you figure that out.

I would have to say that zero percent of straight men are interested in boys, zero percent. So if anyone is going to straighten this out it just might be a straight man, not a gay man, that defies logic just a bit. By the way David, these are our children, these are our children and their safety and well-being trumps any desire of any gay man to be a Scout leader or a gay boy to be a Scout. If you want to be that and you can’t I’m sorry but we can’t all be what we want to be, we can’t put others at risk just because we want something. At least we used to understand that, now it’s like whatever you want to do you can do it and the rest of us be…you know what it shouldn’t be that way David, these are our kids and we’re trying to protect them.

Meanwhile, Buster Wilson of the AFA went on another anti-gaydiatribe, insisting that parents “are not going to allow their boys to go on camping trips with a gay Scout leader.”

They’re going to change the policy of no gays in the Boy Scouts to changing it to let every Boy Scout entity decide for themselves. Well the President weighed in on that before the ballgame last night…he said, quoting now: ‘My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life.’ Unbelievable. Now he’s talking about the Boy Scouts and he’s talking about gays and lesbians should have every opportunity in the Boy Scouts that everybody else does. Doesn’t matter, Mr. President, does it, that that will destroy the Boy Scouts?

And for all the mocking that comes from all the folks on the left it will destroy the Boy Scouts. It will wind up, as I said last week, just being a few, a small percentage of people who believe you should be tolerant and accept anything and everything. That small percentage and then the gay community, that’s all that will be in the Boy Scouts if they change their rule. Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist churches are the largest number of organizations that host Boy Scout troops, they have said that the churches will withdraw from Boy Scouts in mass droves. So many other people have said they will pull their boys out. They are not going to allow their boys to go on camping trips with a gay Scout leader, out in the woods with a gay Scout leader for three or four days.

In reading through the amicus briefs submittedby anti-gaygroups to the Supreme Court, we’ve been generally impressed by the relative restraint of their legal arguments compared to their day-to-day anti-gay tirades. But not so with the two briefs submitted last week by a hodgepodge coalition of conservative groups.

So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the filings contain passages like this one, in the Prop 8 brief, arguing that laws against homosexuality affirm rather than deny the humanity of gay people:

Second, while the discrimination against Blacks in America denied them their rightful status as a member of the human race vis-à-vis their white counterparts, the discrimination against homosexuals affirmed their status as full and equal members of the human race. Indeed, the very definition of the “crime against nature,” was employed to emphasize that the sexual behavior condemned was contrary to the law of human nature. Homosexual behavior, then, while unnatural did not mean that those guilty of it were any less human.

Or this one from the DOMA brief arguing that gays and lesbians have not historically faced discrimination because some criminal sodomy laws also “extended to opposite sex unnatural couplings”:

As a class, homosexuals have not been discriminated against in the way that the court of appeals has so “easily” assumed. The appellate panel below concluded that “the most telling proof of animus and discrimination is that, for many years and in many states, homosexual conduct was criminal.” Yet historically, even the crime of sodomy was not so targeted. Rather, it was defined as “carnal copulation against the order of nature by man with man; or in the same unnatural manner with woman; or by man or woman in any manner with a beast.” Thus, the crime of sodomy was “known in the common law by the convertible and equivalent name [] of ‘crime against nature,” the offense not only extended to opposite sex unnatural couplings, but was one of several sexual offenses that fit under the broad category of “offenses against the public health, safety, comfort and morals.” Among these sexual offenses were bigamy, adultery, fornication, lewdness and illicit cohabitation, incest, miscegenation, and seduction, all of which could be committed by persons of the opposite sex. Rather than a narrow negative purpose, these laws reflect a perceived concern for the public health, safety, comfort, and morals of certain sexual behaviors.

Or that the groups oh-so-cleverly invoke the court’s Obamacare decision to argue that the extra taxes same-sex spouses pay under DOMA are an acceptable way of “deterring certain activities”:

Additionally, this Court has consistently ruled that Congress’s power to tax is not limited to the purpose of raising revenue. Thus, this Court found that it is permissible for Congress to adopt a taxing policy for the purpose of deterring certain activities by the levying of a tax on them, as well as for the purpose of collecting revenue. Therefore, according to precedent, it is a constitutionally permissible exercise of Congress to adopt a tax policy for the purpose of nurturing traditional marriage as the ideal family structure for raising children, just as this Court has recently observed, that it is perfectly permissible for Congress to impose a tax “to encourage people to quit smoking” or “to shape decisions about whether to buy health insurance.”…It is not for the courts to second-guess whether Congress should promote a traditional family policy in the exercise of its taxing powers.

But what is truly remarkable about the Citizens United coalition’s legal arguments is their eagerness to burn all bridges and declare everything they come across unconstitutional. While the Family Research Council and Liberty Counsel, presumably trying to appeal to Justice Anthony Kennedy, hold their noses and accept Kennedy’s pro-gay rights opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans as law, Citizens United et al have no such scruples. Not only should Lawrence and Romer be overturned, this group argues, but so should Bolling v. Sharpe, the 1954 Brown v. Board companion case that desegregated the District of Columbia’s public schools. Bolling was the first decision in which the Supreme Court explicitly found an equal protection component in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, thus setting the stage for six decades of prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government – all of which the coalition would like to see go.

But these groups don’t just go after decades of legal precedent. They also personally attack two judges who ruled against Prop 8 before it reached the Supreme Court, in particular district court judge Vaughn Walker, who is openly gay:

With the understanding of Judge Walker’s personal interest in the outcome of the case, it becomes much easier to understand his finding every fact for the plaintiffs and his willingness to impute ill will to the proponents of Proposition 8. For example, having in his personal life rejected 6,000 years of moral and religious teaching, we can see how Judge Walker could readily determine that California voters were motivated solely by “moral and religious views…that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples [and] these interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8.” The same is true for Judge Walker’s conclusion that supporters’ motivations were: “fear,” “unarticulated dislike,” not “rational,” based on “animus toward gays and lesbians,” “irrational,” “without reason,” and “born of animus.” Petitioners were entitled to have their case heard by an impartial judge – not one who was leading a secret life engaging in behaviors which he appeared to believe were being unfairly judged and criticized by the proponents of Proposition 8.

Glenn Beck dedicated last night's program to exposing how today's progressives are really modern-day eugenicists.

The National Bible Association has awarded its top honor to Hobby Lobby President Steve Green for fighting the government's HHS mandate.

Matt Barber says gay activists "want access to our children, to be able to corrupt their minds and instill in them this worldview that says there is no right and wrong, that there is no such thing as sexual sin or sexual morality."

ALIPAC's William Gheen says Senators "Rubio, McCain, and Graham are deeply scarring their reputations within the Republican party by both pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants and remaining in open coalition with Senator Bob Menendez despite these shocking revelations and scandals. Senator Menendez needs to resign from the immigration reform amnesty group and the US Senate seat he is disgracing with his continued presence."

Finally, Bryan Fischer offers his own "Christian approach to immigration reform," in which all who are here illegally will "engage in self-repatriation."

Responding to a listener who called into his "Focal Point" radio program today, Bryan Fischer said that if the Boy Scouts decide to drop the prohibition on gay scouts and leaders, the organization will have to change the language in its oath that scouts repeat as they pledge "to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight" because the phrase "morally straight" will be rendered meaningless.

"Even homosexuals refer to us as 'straights'," Fischer explained, "because we're straight, we're not crooked, we're not bent, we're not twisted, we're not perverse, we're straight. I mean, the opposite of straight is bent, twisted, crooked, perverse, so that term ['morally straight'] is going to be meaningless now":

Barbara Cargill, whom Rick Perry picked to chair the State Board of Education, is upset that a curriculum used by several Texas schools called CSCOPE, which has been at the center of right-wingconspiracytheories, doesn’t teach students about alternative theories to evolution. As first reported by the Texas Freedom Network, Cargill said that publishers and CSCOPE should teach “another side to the theory of evolution.”

Our intent, as far as theories with the [curriculum standards], was to teach all sides of scientific explanations…. But when I went on [to the CSCOPE website] last night, I couldn’t see anything that might be seen as another side to the theory of evolution. Every link, every lesson, everything, you know, was taught as ‘this is how the origin of life happened, this is what the fossil record proves,’ and all that’s fine, but that’s only one side.

As we’ve pointed out before, a biology textbook that includes creationism as a “balance” to evolution would be no different than a geology textbook that includes the views of the Flat Earth Society.

By now everyone has seen NRA head Wayne LaPierre declare that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” while calling for armed guards in every American school. The NRA’s proposed solution to gun violence can be boiled down to even more guns, and the group wants concealed weapons in all public spaces – including churches, schools, bars and airports.

If there’s one place that I would expect to be able to take a concealed gun, it’s to a gun show. That’s why I was struck by the advice doled out by the NRA’s National Firearms Museum on “How to be a Gun Collector.” In the article, authored by NRA museum director Jim Supica, would-be gun collectors are directed to “practice basic gun safety” at gun shows.

Supica starts off with the most basic rule of gun safety, warning against allowing “the muzzle of a gun you're handling to point at other folks.” But then he stumbles badly off-message (from the NRA party line) with some commonsense advice that, were President Obama to say it, would hasten comparisons to Mao and Hitler.

The NRA’s Supica directs gun collectors to “keep your guns tied inoperable” (like this) when attending a gun show, noting that this is a “requirement at the better shows.” And he isn't done.

Supica then directs gun collectors to “never bring a loaded gun into a show,” even if it’s a “legal concealed carry gun.” Furthermore, collectors should never “test chamber a round in a show.” Of course, your typical armed guard or concealed carry enthusiast already has a round in the chamber, but never mind that.

Supica observes that “negligent discharges are very rare at shows.” However, when they do happen they typically involve “a concealed carry gun that was brought in loaded.”

You might be wondering why this namby-pamby Supica character hates the Second Amendment so much or whether the NRA knows it has a gun-hating pinko running its museum. But in their defense, Supica’s article bears this disclaimer: “Opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of NRA or the National Firearms Museum.” Well, that’s a relief. Supica may be an NRA employee and run their museum, but at least his commonsense, life-saving advice can’t be pinned on the NRA.

The takeaway, then, is that guns should be unloaded, tied inoperable and held out in the open at gun shows. But if you’re at a church, school, bar or shopping mall, you should feel free to conceal and carry a loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber. And that is how you practice basic gun safety.

Texas Governor Rick Perry stopped by "WallBuilders Live" today to voice his opposition to the upcoming vote by the Boy Scouts of America on possibly ending the organization's ban on gay scouts and scout leaders. Perry, the author of the book "On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For," was predictably opposed to any such change, calling on the organization not to "break the hearts" of those who love it by caving to the "cruel intolerance" of the left:

What this gets down to Rick is that scouting is not about sex, it's about building character. And the Boy Scouts is not the proper intersection for a debate over sexual preference. It is with this very aggressive, almost cruel intolerance by the far left that is making it so. So I really urge the Boy Scouts of America leadership not to succumb to this and I happen to believe that it is every scout's, and certainly my Eagle Scout duty to speak out before scouting breaks the hearts of so many who love it.

Those just very, very aggressive, intolerant individuals on the left are what is driving this agenda and the Boy Scout leadership, I hope, will really listen and think about what the long-term impact of this is going to be.

This is about popular culture shifting in America. The values that the Boy Scouts are based upon are not values that shift ... and Americans will be ill-served when one of the great institutions that it has in this country starts following pop culture rather than the clear, strong values that have served this country for over a century in the Boy Scouts.

Harvey said she learned from the book that gay people’s “same-sex desires diminish” once they deal “with envy, grudge-holding and other sinful attitudes,” and gays will eventually develop “attractions to women.” She said that the book helped young readers who contemplated suicide and alienation.

What Floyd [Godfrey] writes makes practical as well as spiritual sense. He suffered from intense envy and admiration of other boys and wanted to be like them but felt different and inferior. As he hit puberty this envy took on a sexual dimension but it was the longing for a close, affirming male friendship that was at the root of these desires. Floyd knew he did not want to go down the road of homosexuality. His faith in Christ prompted him to keep praying for a change in his feelings but that change did not happen until he went to a conference of others who had overcome these desires. It was a major turning point, what he learned put him on the path toward healing of the many other issues that he believes God wanted him to recognize. Repentance and then transformation began to take place in Floyd’s life and as he dealt with envy, grudge-holding and other sinful attitudes, the same-sex desires diminished and he began to feel something entirely unexpected: attractions to women.

Listen to some of the comments from boys who’ve read this book. Kyle, age 15, says: ‘This book makes so much sense. I can see myself in so many of the examples. I wanted to hurt myself before, I used to hate who I was, I thought about suicide, now I feel hope, I think I can do it, I’m starting to like who I am.’ Skyler, age 17, says: ‘It was so comforting to know other guys have felt this way and to know I’m not alone. It’s given me a voice to things I couldn’t put into words. It’s really been helping, after trying to do the things in the book I’m now dating and love it!’